The F-102 Delta Dagger (Was GWB as a Nat'l Guard Fighter Pilot threads.)

In message m, David
E. Powell writes
Third. did the F-102 have a gun or just internal missiles in a weapon bay?

Falcon missiles (six IIRC) in the bay, plus 24 x 2.75" rockets (launch
tubes in the bay doors). From memory there were twelve tubes each with
two rockets nose-to-tail: this was sometimes downloaded to twelve, and
F-102s in Vietnam did some very light ground attack (using their IR
sensor to find targets like campfires and the rockets to engage). My
recollections may be at variance with the facts, so check before using


*There was a massive "Was GENIE a rocket or a missile" debate on another
group, which I won't get into here. I think the verdict was a rocket, which
it was, guided missile or not.

Unguided (and hence unjammable, but demanding to use correctly)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message m, David
E. Powell writes
Third. did the F-102 have a gun or just internal missiles in a weapon bay?

Falcon missiles (six IIRC) in the bay, plus 24 x 2.75" rockets (launch
tubes in the bay doors). From memory there were twelve tubes each with
two rockets nose-to-tail: this was sometimes downloaded to twelve, and
F-102s in Vietnam did some very light ground attack (using their IR
sensor to find targets like campfires and the rockets to engage). My
recollections may be at variance with the facts, so check before using


*There was a massive "Was GENIE a rocket or a missile" debate on another
group, which I won't get into here. I think the verdict was a rocket, which
it was, guided missile or not.

Unguided (and hence unjammable, but demanding to use correctly)

Jack Broughton was less than confident about the Genie's accuracy. He compared
firing one to tying a piece of string around your finger and the other end
around the trigger of a shotgun. When you wanted to fire the shotgun, you threw
it away from you and it fired when the string pulled taught, with the accuracy
you'd expect under such conditions. He goes on (I've left his spelling
unchanged):

"Two specific cases made me a non-Geenie [sic] fan. The first Geenie that was
test-fired from an F-106 came right back up, blew the nose off the aircraft, and
killed the pilot. Years later I got a chance to go to Tyndal [sic] with my
F-106 squadron. ADC had saved their resources too well and wound up with a
large number of Geenies that only had a few days to go before they would run out
of shelf life and have to be destroyed. The plan was to fire as many of them as
fast as we could, so for a week straight we saturated the Gulf of Mexico with
every Geenie that we could get to accept the firing signal and leave our
aircraft. They took off in all directions, but very seldom towards the target
drones. One particular Geenie turned hard left as I fired and I watched it do
lazy concentric barrel rolls as it headed straight down to my left. I knew that
if it was for real the boom only had to be close, but suppose straight down and
to the left was the area I was supposed to be defending? Well, the other theory
of the times was that we would be intercepting all the invading bombers way up
north someplace, where I wouldn't know anybody living off to my lower left."

[quoted from "Going Downtown", by Jack Broughton]

Guy

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message m, David
E. Powell writes
Third. did the F-102 have a gun or just internal missiles in a weapon
bay?

Falcon missiles (six IIRC) in the bay, plus 24 x 2.75" rockets (launch
tubes in the bay doors). From memory there were twelve tubes each with
two rockets nose-to-tail: this was sometimes downloaded to twelve, and
F-102s in Vietnam did some very light ground attack (using their IR
sensor to find targets like campfires and the rockets to engage). My
recollections may be at variance with the facts, so check before using


Thanks! I hadn't known about the 2.75 rockets, sounds like the F-94
Scorpion. The Falcon must have been a decent missile, the -106s and other
fighters used them into the 80s and early 90s.

*There was a massive "Was GENIE a rocket or a missile" debate on
another
group, which I won't get into here. I think the verdict was a rocket,
which
it was, guided missile or not.

Unguided (and hence unjammable, but demanding to use correctly)

OK....

Jack Broughton was less than confident about the Genie's accuracy. He
compared
firing one to tying a piece of string around your finger and the other end
around the trigger of a shotgun. When you wanted to fire the shotgun, you
threw
it away from you and it fired when the string pulled taught, with the
accuracy
you'd expect under such conditions. He goes on (I've left his spelling
unchanged):

"Two specific cases made me a non-Geenie [sic] fan. The first Geenie that
was
test-fired from an F-106 came right back up, blew the nose off the
aircraft, and
killed the pilot. Years later I got a chance to go to Tyndal [sic] with
my
F-106 squadron. ADC had saved their resources too well and wound up with
a
large number of Geenies that only had a few days to go before they would
run out
of shelf life and have to be destroyed. The plan was to fire as many of
them as
fast as we could, so for a week straight we saturated the Gulf of Mexico
with
every Geenie that we could get to accept the firing signal and leave our
aircraft. They took off in all directions, but very seldom towards the
target
drones. One particular Geenie turned hard left as I fired and I watched
it do
lazy concentric barrel rolls as it headed straight down to my left. I
knew that
if it was for real the boom only had to be close, but suppose straight
down and
to the left was the area I was supposed to be defending? Well, the other
theory
of the times was that we would be intercepting all the invading bombers
way up
north someplace, where I wouldn't know anybody living off to my lower
left."

Over tundra or ocean would have been the ideal use considered, I guess....

[quoted from "Going Downtown", by Jack Broughton]

Guy

In message m, David
E. Powell writes
Thanks! I hadn't known about the 2.75 rockets, sounds like the F-94
Scorpion. The Falcon must have been a decent missile, the -106s and other
fighters used them into the 80s and early 90s.

No, it sucked really badly (less than 5% Pk in Vietnam, although against
fighters at low level with some hostile factors) but it was a low
priority for replacement or enhancement.


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message m, David
E. Powell writes
Thanks! I hadn't known about the 2.75 rockets, sounds like the F-94
Scorpion. The Falcon must have been a decent missile, the -106s and other
fighters used them into the 80s and early 90s.

No, it sucked really badly (less than 5% Pk in Vietnam, although against
fighters at low level with some hostile factors) but it was a low
priority for replacement or enhancement.

Whoa - Considering how long they served I would have thought the opposite.
Maybe it was felt they had better odds against bombers. Or there was some
sort of upgrade by the '80s. Considering alot of ANG fighters that escorted
bombers up and down the seacost in the Cold War carried them.

I wonder if GWB ever flew with the nuclear version....?

DEP

Maybe that's why the F-106 got a cannon....

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"David E. Powell" wrote in message
s.com...
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message m, David
E. Powell writes
Thanks! I hadn't known about the 2.75 rockets, sounds like the F-94
Scorpion. The Falcon must have been a decent missile, the -106s and
other
fighters used them into the 80s and early 90s.

No, it sucked really badly (less than 5% Pk in Vietnam, although against
fighters at low level with some hostile factors) but it was a low
priority for replacement or enhancement.

Whoa - Considering how long they served I would have thought the opposite.

No, Paul is correct. The Falcon did not have a very good record (F-4D's
accounted for five Migs with it over Vietnam). But remember that it was
really the first generation AAM in the USAF. A good summary of the Falcon
and its capabilities can be found at Andreas' site:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-4.html

Maybe it was felt they had better odds against bombers.

It probably would have.

Or there was some
sort of upgrade by the '80s. Considering alot of ANG fighters that
escorted
bombers up and down the seacost in the Cold War carried them.

The Falcon did go through upgrades throughout its career. The final ones in
service (AIM-4F/G limited to use on the F-106) were undoubtedly better and
more capable than the early sixties variants, with greater range, larger
warheads, and better maneuverability than the original AIM-4A and later
AIM-4D. It still was not a 8great* missile, but developing further
improvments or going to the expense of trying to integrate a newer missile
into the F-106 as it approached the twilight of its career was not going to
happen.

The Swedes produced their own conventionally armed variant of the AIM-26,
the Rb-27, which served with their Drakens (and IIRC Viggens) up through the
mid-eighties.


I wonder if GWB ever flew with the nuclear version....?

Who knows? But it would have been unlikely, as the AIM-26 was phased out of
US service by 1971.

Brooks


DEP

Maybe that's why the F-106 got a cannon....

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...

Maybe it was felt they had better odds against bombers.

It probably would have.

The Falcon was originally designed for shooting down bombers and not
fighters. Only the AIM-4D was considered as a "dogfight" missile.

The Falcon did go through upgrades throughout its career. The final ones in
service (AIM-4F/G limited to use on the F-106) were undoubtedly better and
more capable than the early sixties variants, with greater range, larger
warheads, and better maneuverability than the original AIM-4A and later
AIM-4D.

This is a bit wrong. The Falcon came originally in two versions and
entered service with the F-89J with the -A and -C versions (three each
to every F-89) either late in 1956 or early 1957. The -A being radar
guided, and the -C infrared. The -E was a larger variant with radar
guidance and this entered production shortly after the -A's and -C's.
The -F was an improved -E and was the standard radar version. About
the same time the -G was introduced as an infrared variant of the
-E/-F. IIRC, the -D was not introduced until about '60, and was the
last variant procured. It was basically the smaller -A/-C airframe
with the -G guidance and motor. Some were purpose built, but most
were reconstructed -A/-C's. It is confusing that the last Falcon
would be given an "earlier" designation, but remember that all were
manufactured prior to the tri-service (re)designations in 1962. The
AIM-26s were even larger than the -E/-F/-G's and so were given a
different designations. AIM-26A was the nuke version of the Falcon.
The AIM-26B had a conventional warhead, and was produced under licence
in Sweden as the Rb-27 (as you say). The AIM-47 was to have armed the
F-108, and later the YF-12.

The Falcon, FWIW, was, like BOMARC, given a "fighter" designation;
F-98 Falcon (BOMARC was F-99). The designation changes was as
follows:

USAF Tri-Service

GAR-1 AIM-4
GAR-1D AIM-4A
GAR-2 AIM-4B
GAR-2A AIM-4C
GAR-2B AIM-4D
GAR-3 AIM-4E
GAR-3A AIM-4F
GAR-4A AIM-4G
GAR-11 AIM-26A
GAR-11A AIM-26B
GAR-9 AIM-47A

--
Regards,

Michael P. Reed

In article ,
Kevin Brooks wrote:

The Swedes produced their own conventionally armed variant of the AIM-26,
the Rb-27, which served with their Drakens (and IIRC Viggens) up through the
mid-eighties.

Draken was actually in service until late 1998 (because
that's when Gripen was qualified as an air defence fighter
and the principle then was to have two types in service in
that role), Viggen never used RB 27, but the IR-guided
Falcon RB 28 was planned as a self defence missile for the
ground attack and recce Viggens. (Very weird to wire it
for Sidewinders on the under fuselage stations and Falcons
on the outer wing stations never used for anything else.
Not used, but I'm not sure for exactly what reason - maybe
on wing life, maybe flutter, maybe unsuitability as a self
defence missile (assuming that was the real reason).)
However, Swiss Mirages used the RB 27 as well.
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
A weapon is a device for making your enemy change his mind.

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message m, David
E. Powell writes
Thanks! I hadn't known about the 2.75 rockets, sounds like the F-94
Scorpion. The Falcon must have been a decent missile, the -106s and other
fighters used them into the 80s and early 90s.

No, it sucked really badly (less than 5% Pk in Vietnam, although against
fighters at low level with some hostile factors) but it was a low
priority for replacement or enhancement.

The real deal is that most F-106s were decoys, by the mid 1970s.

Did you mean F-102s??? as drones???

First QF-106s appeared in late 80s...


Mark

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
news

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message m, David
E. Powell writes
Thanks! I hadn't known about the 2.75 rockets, sounds like the F-94
Scorpion. The Falcon must have been a decent missile, the -106s and
other
fighters used them into the 80s and early 90s.

No, it sucked really badly (less than 5% Pk in Vietnam, although against
fighters at low level with some hostile factors) but it was a low
priority for replacement or enhancement.

The real deal is that most F-106s were decoys, by the mid 1970s.